...if we were still located in our old location in Austin. Back then (between '94 and 2000) the HM Magazine office was inside our house. We had a large house in Northeast Austin that had a 250 square foot "sunroom" that was ideal for our work space. We had a shed in the back where we kept indie albums and back issues, as well as floor-to-ceiling wooden shelves in the garage that held other merchandise. We had five people working in that small room. If we were still there, I would have needed to call Brian, Chad, Mandy, Gordon, Wesley, Gwen, Leslie, Ben, Amanda, Cathy and/or others, to tell them: "Don't come to work today! It's dangerous to be in our neighborhood. I'll be working from inside the house, but not venturing out."
What happened in the wee hours of the morning (about 4 am) was a shooting in the area of our old neighborhood (possibly at the Randall's grocery store on Berkman. When police arrived, they came upon five suspects, who fled. One of them opened fire with an AK-47. That person was shot and killed. No officers were injured. One of the suspects was captured and arrested, and another was probably cornered. The Police Department was on the news this morning in a late-breaking story. They explained what had happened, and encouraged everyone in that area to stay inside. Several schools (most of which were really close to our old house) were closed for the day.
Wow. That's a scary event.
On the subject of the past, last night our family spent a couple hours watching old family home movies, watching our young daughters ham it up in front of the cameras. We watched a baby goat nibble on my daughter's shirt in a petting zoo, and we saw several funny old hairstyles. I was especially embarrassed over some of my former hair styles. When a balding spot started to appear on the back top of my head, it was determined that my almost waist-length hair should be cut shorter, so as not to pull on the roots and thus expose the bald spot even more. My shoulder-length compromise was quite poofy and fru-fru. I don't look back on those images with pride, I can tell you that!
In Mark chapter 8, we read several details about one of the most amazing miracles Jesus performed. It was so notorious that even Jesus seemed to sarcastically refer to it (when he later said, "Did you just come out here for food?"). The chapter starts off with a semi-quantitative introduction: "During those days another large crowd gathered." Apparently, this crowd had been with Jesus for three days and they had nothing to eat. Jesus informed His disciples that they should be fed, because just dismissing them to go home might spell their doom, as "home" might be too far to journey without nourishment. His disciples pointed out the practical facts: they didn't have a food supply, and it was a remote location, so none could be had too easily. Jesus replied, "How many loaves do you have?"
When He found out He had something to work with, He had all the people sit down and He gave thanks (to Whom? His Father, another detail pointing to the Trinity) and then handed the fish and bread to His disciples to serve the people. They were all satisfied, the text says. Afterwards, He sent them home and they got into a boat. It's interesting that, according to these details, Jesus didn't feed them and force them to listen to more teaching (which they wouldn't have objected to, as they were there to hear Him), nor did He have an "altar call" to get more followers to commit to Him. He just met their need, said goodbye and split up the meeting.
The Pharisees came to Him and asked for a sign from Heaven. It says, "He sighed deeply and said, 'Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign? I tell you the truth, no sign will be given to it.'" It's kind of funny to see how annoying these religious people were to God in the flesh.
The disciples forgot to bring bread, save for one loaf, onto the boat, and Jesus took that time to warn them: "Be careful. Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod." They talked about this and concluded, "It is because we have no bread." Jesus knew what they were discussing, so He hit into them:
"Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts burdened? Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don't you remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up? (12) And when I broke the seven loaves for the four thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up? (7) Do you still not understand?"
I'll be honest, if I was one of those guys, I would have done some quick math and blurted out, "Uh, that next time we'll pick up 19 basketfuls?!" I can't really blame them for being idiots, because I can see how they might be confused and put too much analysis into some things and neglect other points.
In Bethsaida, a blind man was healed. This is a passage that the Vineyard uses to teach on healing (which I think is brilliant). The formula they've deduced goes something like this:
1. Interview the subject. Find out what's wrong.
2. Ask God the Father what to do.
3. Do it.
4. Interview the subject again. Ex: "Do you see anything?" The guy answered, "I see people, they look like trees walking around."
5. Repeat steps 1-4.
That is kinda what we see Jesus do here. This is something that we can do. I love this formula, because it is entirely based on something that is out of our control. We have to ask God what to do and then do it. This formula will work for anything else that needs God to show up -- like evangelism and deliverance (exorcism).
Jesus told this healed man not to go into the village. Do you think Jesus was using reverse psychology to get people to talk about Him more? Most biblical scholars think (I presume) the contrary; that Jesus was trying to prevent the crowds from being so large that his public ministry would be impossible. The massive amounts of people in crowds certainly dictate the logistics of public events. I can only imagine what it would be like now, with a much more populated planet all wanting to see and hear Him.
Jesus quizzed His disciples with the, "Who do people say I am?" question. Some of the answers were: "John the Baptist," "Elijah" and "one of the prophets." He turned the question towards His 12. "But what about you? Who do you say I am?" Peter answered, "You are the Christ." Jesus then warned them not to tell anyone about Him. Then He taught them that the "Son of Man" must suffer many things "and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law..." This must've sobered the disciples up and bummed them out. If this was truly a religious leader, they might have thought, shouldn't the Jewish leaders eventually accept Him and usher Him into some sort of top office?
He also told them that He must be killed, but after three days rise again. The text says He spoke very plainly about this. "Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him." That is both sad and funny. Peter was probably thinking something like what I just explained, but he was rebuking the Incarnate God! Jesus didn't take too kindly to the effort. He looked at His other disciples and rebuked Peter big-time: "Get behind Me, Satan! You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."
Wow. Those are harsh reality bytes for Peter.
Jesus called a crowd to Him and declared that anyone that wants to follow Him must deny themselves, "take up his cross and follow Me." I wonder how that went over at this point in time, before Jesus was hung on a cross. I bet this message later had more of an impact, when they had actually seen Him hang on a cross and die.
At the end of the passage, He references returning to Earth "in His Father's glory with the holy angels." Wow, that is intense. We have not seen that happen yet. That will be one beautiful and powerful event. The reference He made is a strong one about being loyal to God. He said, "If anyone is ashamed of Me and My Words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His Father's glory with the holy angels."
Posted by Doug Van Pelt at November 6, 2008 10:53 AM